Is Hillary Clinton evil?

My wealthy sister and her wealthy friends, nearly all of whom are retired military officers, refer to Hillary Clinton as “evil.” In my view, Adolf Hitler, Josheph Stalin, Pol Pot and others of that ilk are evil–I wouldn’t put Hillary in their camp. So, is Hillary Clinton evil or not?

No.

Longer answer: Hilary Clinton is a successful, powerful, liberal Democrat. To some Republicans, which I would venture in this case to include your “wealthy sister and her wealthy friends, nearly all of whom are retired military officers,” that is the very definition of evil.

I was considering adding in that if only she was a homosexual could she be more evil to that group, but on second thought I think to them being associated with Bill Clinton is probably worse.

To expand on this a bit further, she came to prominence about the same time conservative Republicans were coming into power in Congress. She’s a career woman who chose to keep her career even after Chelsea’s birth. She also chose to stay active during her husband’s administration (remember the health-insurance issue during the mid-90s?), and made no secret of her future political aspirations.

None of this sat well with the conservative Republicans, who felt that she was overstepping her bounds as a wife and mother. Many conservative commentators demanded to know who was taking care of her family while she was out working, and why wasn’t she home doing that? (Never mind the fact that, at the time, Bay Buchanan had a teenager at home; what made her different?)

I think Sen. Clinton is a product of her time. She went to college and law school at the height of the feminist movement, and saw no reason to give up her career even though she’d had a child. She also saw no reason to stop being active when her husband was elected to office.

Does this make her evil? Nah. In fact, I think she’s worthy of a lot of respect, certainly more than she’s gotten.

Robin

First ya need to define “evil.”

I would venture to guess that a good percentage of successful American politicians are highly Machiavellian, deceitful, manipulative, happy to do lots of damage to other people to further their own selfish ends, overly obsessed with acquiring wealth and power, and, at bottom, don’t really care about right and wrong.

In a society like that of America, it can be difficult to positively identify these “evil” people, since they obviously are gonna take steps to rationalize and/or conceal their evil conduct.

My guess is that yeah, Hillary is probably evil by the above standard (as are many Republicans).

Is Hillary Clinton evil? Of course not.

Conservative Republicans tend to criticize her on three sets of grounds. According to them:[ul][li]The policies she supports would lead to bad consequences.[]Her past record shows a certain amount of greed and sleazy financial dealings.[]She sometimes uses the technique of demonizing her political opponents.[/ul]Even if the critics are right, it’s nowhere near evil. These criticisms could be made of many pols in both parties.[/li]
BTW I don’t buy Ms. Robyn’s explanation:

Comparable things could be written about Elizabeth Dole, who made similar choices 10 years before Hillary Clinton did, when it was more difficult and more unusual. Sandra Day O’Connor made similar choices 15 years before Hillary Clinton did. Phyllis Schlafly made similar choices 30 years earlier, and maintained her career while raising six children. Hillary Clinton’s critics have plenty of respect for these three women.

Conservative Republicans dislike Hillary Clinton because they disagree with her policies.

Hillary Clinton is a polarizing figure. Some supporters consider her to be virtually a saint; some opponents see her as evil. In my opinion, she’s an unusually bright politician.

:eek: :confused:

Who are you, and what have you done with december ?

December, there was (and still is) some hypocrisy, in that Hillary was supposed to stay home and take care of Chelsea, but that it’s okay for Bay Buchanan or Phyllis Schlafly to go out and bang the drum for the conservative cause and leave their kids at home.

My response may not be the whole basis for the belief that Hillary’s evil, but it’s not an inconsequential part, either.

Robin

I hate to belabor the obvious, but that was my post, not Airman’s.

If we were a normal family, I’d be yelling at him to put the damn seat down. Since we’re not, I have to yell at him to log out of the SDMB. :wink:

Robin

MsRobyn, I have heard critics of the right wing allege that some right wingers holds these views. However, I have not seen or heard any right-wingers actually express these views.

E.g., Rush Limbaugh is a big critic of Hillary Clinton. His criticisms have focused on her alleged dishonesty, alleged ruthlessness, and alleged bad policies. William Safire called her a “congenital liar” in a famous (or infamous) New York Times column. AFAIK neither of these right-wingers ever criticized her for having a career rather than staying home.

There may be some critics, somewhere, who complained about Hillary not staying home, but I’ve not seen them. IMHO assigning bad motives to one’s critics is a way to avoid their substantive points.

I made a brief effort to find cites on this point and came up empty. Do you have any?

Most of it came from the cookie debacle during the 92 election, when Hillary declined to participate, and from Bay Buchanan’s talk show. Most of the criticism did come from women, however.

Robin

I have never heard a conservative criticism of Sen. Clinton based on the fact that she didn’t stay home to raise Chelsea.

I have heard Sen. Clinton herself speak demeaningly of what it is like to stay home and raise children (her infamous “I could have stayed home and baked cookies” quote), but most of the criticism levelled at her was based on things like

  • her remarkable prescience in futures trading

  • her inability to locate files that later turned up on her library table, with her fingerprints on them

  • her ill-advised efforts to bring about a federal take over of the US health care system

  • the general sleaze of the administration of which, at one point, she was alleged to be “co-President”.

No, I would not classify her as evil. She certainly holds to principles with which I disagree, and she has been in politics long enough to accumulate several scandals. But evil, no.

Regards,
Shodan

No. Homosexual would be worse. As you know us Republicans all Hate gay people.

:rolleyes:

Has your sister ever specified exactly why she thinks HRC is evil? I know that the culture of the military is pretty right-wing, and that mindless hatred of the Clintons is almost a requirement, but EVIL? Is there any REASONING behind this or are they just brainwashed ditto-heads?

I personally took issue with Hillary “not staying home.” She was not an elected official, and I wasn’t thrilled to have her placed in charge of reforming our Nation’s healthcare system simply on the strength of who she married.

That was the substance of the complaint levelled against her by the Republicans and Conservatives.

One of the best things to do when accused is to accuse your accusers, and there was a somwhat succesful attempt to do this, and make her accusers look as if they were attacking Women’s Rights.

If you disagree with me I’d welcome a cite showing a Republican/Conservative attacking Hillary based of gender roles.

IIRC, the criticism from the “cookie debacle” was not “Hillary should have stayed home to raise Chelsea,” but was rather “Hillary should not belittle those who elect to be stay-at-home mothers.” In other words, it was not Hillary’s career choices that were the source of criticism, but rather her words which could be interpreted as looking down on nonworking mothers.

Another criticism (which I see on preview that Scylla has mentioned) is her role in forming policy during the Clinton administration. Again, this was not based on her gender or marital status, but rather on the fact that she wasn’t elected or appointed as part of the government. If her husband had put her up for a cabinet post and the Senate approved her, that criticism would have gone away.

Presidents put unelected people in charge of such task forces all the time. What’s so special about Hillary?

[quote]
Presidents put unelected people in charge of such task forces all the time. What’s so special about Hillary?

[quote]

Exactly my point.

Shodan:
There is no shred of evidence that HC committed any crimes in futures trading, as opposed to the undeniable, multiple corporate crimes committed by Bush and Cheney.

So WHAT if her fingerprints were on the billing records. They were HER billing records. They were SUPPOSED to have her fingerprints on them. She never said she hadn’t TOUCHED the damn things, only that she couldn’t find them. Furthermore, there was absolutely nothing INCRIMINATING about them. They supported HER side of the story, so why would she hide them?

We NEED a federal takeover of the healthcare system, but that isn’t what Hillary tried to do. Get your facts straight. She made no attempt to deprivatize anything. She was working on a modified single-payer system. Insurance companies and HMO’s (which are UNDENIABLY evil) tried to PORTRAY it as a federal takeover, and you obviously bought it hook, line and sinker. Did you ever actually READ the plan? I doubt it. It’s easier just to parakeet Rush Limbaugh.

What “sleaze” are you referring to? BC’s BJ? How is that Hillary’s fault? As to the “co-president” allegation, what the hell was Nancy Reagan?

Your post is indicative of the kind of half-truths and uninformed propaganda which was trumpeted on right-wing radio for eight years. At least you didn’t resort to calling her a lesbian, and to be fair, you said you didn’t think she was evil. But there is no real evidence that she is even dishonest.

Well, how exactly was she “in charge”? Your wording would make it appear as if she were awarded some special powers, somehow above and outside the legislative process. But she was figurehead and chairperson of a study group that proposed legislation. Some viewed with dismay the radical Marxist idea that poor people should have access to medicine and health care that properly belongs to thier social betters. (As Will Roger remarked “It’s not a crime to be poor. Might as well be.”)

How is this any more heinous than Lady Bird Johnson being “in charge” of beautifying America?

Why is it ok for GWB to appoint of HIS unqualified cronies and butt-buddies to cabinet posts, but BC couldn’t appoint his QUALIFIED wife to one little task force.